On January 24th
2012, President Barack Obama presented the world with his 2012 State of The
Union address. In his speech he focused on many issues such as our economy, the
employment rate, the education system, as well as on stimulating jobs for the
many Americans who have had to suffer from our recent recession. Along with
speaking about these issues, he challenged and encouraged government officials
to take charge and help rebuild the mounting economy, which would allow for
Obama to successfully target the promises that he made in 2008 when he first
took office as the President.
In his speech he
focused majority of the beginning portion around the United States economic
history, while showing the progress that it has made here today in 2012. While
some tend to bash him down and view him as being ineffective as leader and
President of our nation, President Obama quickly reminded the audience of the
conditions for which he had to deal with when he initially took office. Six
months prior to him taking office nearly 4 million jobs had been lost, as well
4 million more jobs being lost a few months into his presidential reign. On a
more positive note, after the frightful first few months of his presidential
campaign the employment rate increased due to advances in manufacturing. With
these advances, millions of jobs were created for United States citizens which
ultimately facilitated in our economy improving in the right direction.
In his speech he
said “The state of the union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to go
back now”. A primary focus that Obama discussed during his speech was the idea
of this superlative country and economy. The economy and country that we live
in by his expectations is one which “everyone is given a fair shot, everyone
does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules”. From a
democratic standpoint the focus on equality and fair opportunity is no
surprise, but the example of “the Buffett rule “that he portrayed was even more
of a reason to fight for change and equality. This “Buffett rule” showed that
people making millions of dollars in today’s economy are in fact held to lower
tax expenditures then the average working secretary who is perhaps considered
to be lower middle class. Not only is this statistic troubling and unfair,
rewarding millionaires for being rich and punishing low and middle class
citizens for not being as financially affluent seems to be morally erroneous.
The significance of President Obama comparing millionaires such as Warren
Buffett to average working citizens such as secretaries was not to make anyone
seem inferior or superior, but rather to show the shift in American culture
where “equal opportunity is more powerful than is equality of wealth and
income”.
Besides the
facts and evidence of progression as a nation, the way in which President Obama
presented his speech to his audience was one in which I found abundant. While
many people who watched the speech were waiting for him to praise the
democratic view, and bash down the republican way, he instead did neither.
Instead he encouraged the audience and the millions watching at home to focus
less on political party, democrat or republican, but rather on finding a common
ground that everyone could agree on. In regards to political party he believed
that we need to “end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a
perpetual campaign of mutual destruction”.
What is meant by this is simply that we as a nation are at its strongest
when we are united as one. And when we are united and together as one strong
and collective body of citizens, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish or
achieve.
When comparing
President Obamas State of The Union speech to a theoretical model for which we
have discussed in class so far, I strongly believe that Roland Barthes’s ideals
apply greatly with those of Obamas speech. The French theorist Barthes in his
essay entitled “Death of the author” strongly disagrees with the tradition
ideals of writing; where the central focus is on the author, but rather suggests
that the text itself should be the stronger focus. Barthes believes that “the
author is never more than the instance of writing, just as “I” is nothing other
than the instance of saying “I”: language knows a “subject”, not a “person”
(145). When comparing the President’s State of The Union speech to Barthes
approach, he focused on the people rather than on himself; which symbolically
illustrates the United States citizens as being the text or work or writing,
and himself as being the author or creator of the work. Barthes disagreed with
the traditional approach of focusing on the author because he felt that by
centering ones focus on the author “imposes a limit on that text. (147).
